Not Your Grandfather’s Labor Movement

[Stephanie]

good point.

Snip:
Email David Stokes

I wish the collectivist left would make up its mind. One the one hand, we have been bombarded for the past few years with the emergent doctrine that the government is the answer to just about everything. On the other hand, the people who work directly for the government organize themselves into unions—the very need for which implies that the workers need a measure of protection from their employer—the government.

It seems like a case of wanting things both ways. As we the people are called upon to cede more and more control of everything that matters to the government, we are also bearing witness to a rather odd spectacle. The very workers who form the delivery mechanism for various government services and benefits are, in effect, presenting themselves as victims of abuse by that same government.

Seriously?


read it all here with comments..
Not Your Grandfather

 

[Truthmatters]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

power to the people through government

There's no such thing. It doesn't exist.

 

[asterism]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

 

[spectrumc01]

Businesses and unions need to redefine their relationsship. Business could save millions not providing health care, pensions, and the personel to run and maintain these programs. The unions always get mad when insurance rates go up and pensions get modified.

The new relationship should unions take over the pension and health care plans, and business contracts the unions for X ammount of workers for an X period of time at a X ammount of money. The individual worker would have the option of joining a union or not. Maybe they don't need insurance or want a pension and can work directly for the company making more than a union member but not recieving benefits.

 

[asterism]

Businesses and unions need to redefine their relationsship. Business could save millions not providing health care, pensions, and the personel to run and maintain these programs. The unions always get mad when insurance rates go up and pensions get modified.

The new relationship should unions take over the pension and health care plans, and business contracts the unions for X ammount of workers for an X period of time at a X ammount of money. The individual worker would have the option of joining a union or not. Maybe they don't need insurance or want a pension and can work directly for the company making more than a union member but not recieving benefits.

That's not a bad idea. No union would ever go for it.

 

[Polk]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Same reason business groups, environmental groups, religious groups, etc. lobby the government.

 

[asterism]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Same reason business groups, environmental groups, religious groups, etc. lobby the government.

Ah. So the government is capable of exploitation?

 

[Sheldon]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Probably because about half the people writing the budget would rather napalm those peoples' compensation than raise taxes on the top 1%.

 

[Stephanie]

good grief, are Liberals born with "raising taxes" on the people of this country stamped on their brains.

Like we don't PAY ENOUGH FRIGGEN TAXES.

 

[asterism]

The government being the answer to everything is merely the way the right pretends that any power to the people through government needs to be distroyed.

No person I have ever spoken to thinks th4e government can fix everything.


Its a right wing talking point and not the point of the view on any side.

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Probably because about half the people writing the budget would rather napalm those peoples' compensation than raise taxes on the top 1%.

Napalm?

A little hysterical aren't we?

That said, why does a union need to get involved? Don't public sector workers have the same right to federal law as taxpayers?

 

[Polk]

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Same reason business groups, environmental groups, religious groups, etc. lobby the government.

Ah. So the government is capable of exploitation?

Absolutely and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who believe otherwise.

 

[Polk]

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Probably because about half the people writing the budget would rather napalm those peoples' compensation than raise taxes on the top 1%.

Napalm?

A little hysterical aren't we?

That said, why does a union need to get involved? Don't public sector workers have the same right to federal law as taxpayers?

You realize public sector workers pay taxes on their income as well, right?

 

[Luissa]

good grief, are Liberals born with "raising taxes" on the people of this country stamped on their brains.

Like we don't PAY ENOUGH FRIGGEN TAXES.

Are republicans born with cutting the pay of the american workers on their brain?

 

[Sheldon]

So why should government employees need protection from their employers?

Probably because about half the people writing the budget would rather napalm those peoples' compensation than raise taxes on the top 1%.

Napalm?

A little hysterical aren't we?

That said, why does a union need to get involved? Don't public sector workers have the same right to federal law as taxpayers?

I was going to go with 'wage a jihad against'. But napalm just has a ring to it.


Federal laws cover everyone, I'm not even seeing the relevance of that question here. If you're referring to child labor laws and 40hr work week and tort laws for getting an arm cut off in a loom, those are red herrings here. Those laws exist now because of labor's activism in the past.

But unions exist today mainly as a watchdog for their members' compensation. Unions that also represent workers in the public sector do so for the same fundamental of representation in the private sector.